Loading ITAT cases…
630 orders · Page 1 of 13
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the separate booking of expenses for Unit I and Unit II, refuting the AO's claim of misallocation. Additionally, the Tribunal found no short deduction of TDS, as the assessee had deducted tax at source on both advance and final payments, including the specified advance payments.
For AY 1997-1998 (Quantum Appeal): The Tribunal held that the addition of INR 2,63,760/- (part of the total addition) was a protective assessment. Since the income was already offered to tax by the assessee's father and the addition was not a result of investigation, the protective addition in the assessee's hands was contrary to the law laid down in Lalji Haridas v. ITO. Therefore, the addition was deleted. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition was respectfully followed. The Revenue's grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes. For AY 2001-2002 (Quantum Appeal): The Tribunal observed that the credits in the foreign bank account were 'Fiduciary Deposit Repayments', supporting the assessee's stand that these were maturity proceeds of deposits made from her father's earnings. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s conclusion that the addition of INR 96,80,005/- could not be sustained, albeit for different reasons. The assessee's cross-objections were allowed, and the CIT(A)'s order was confirmed. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed. For AY 2001-2002 (Penalty Appeal): Since the quantum addition was confirmed to be deleted, the penalty levied in respect of it could not be sustained. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed. For AY 1997-1998 (Penalty Appeal): The Revenue's appeal was dismissed. For AY 2008-2009 (Quantum and Penalty Appeals): The appeals were partly allowed. The specific findings and reasoning for this partial allowance are not detailed in the provided extract.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing evidence of cash withdrawals for telescoping benefit and by furnishing loan confirmations and RTGS details for loan transactions.
The Tribunal allowed the deduction for MTM losses on forex derivatives, relying on Supreme Court and Tribunal precedents. It held that such losses are allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) when consistently accounted for as per mercantile principles and the nature of the transaction is revenue in nature.
The Tribunal held that the loans were genuine, citing the Income Tax Settlement Commission's findings and the documentary evidence provided by the assessee. Consequently, the disallowance of interest and Section 14A expenses were also deleted.
The Tribunal held that additions made to the assessee's income from the foreign bank account could not be sustained as they represented maturity of deposits from the father's savings. Consequently, penalties levied on these additions were also deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing evidence of cash withdrawals for telescoping benefit and by furnishing loan confirmations and RTGS details for loan transactions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing evidence of cash withdrawals for telescoping benefit and by furnishing loan confirmations and RTGS details for loan transactions.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the Act was indeed defective for not striking out the irrelevant limb. Following the Full Bench decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Mohammad Farhan Shaikh (supra), the Tribunal ruled that this is not a mere procedural defect but vitiates the entire penalty proceedings. The notice must clearly inform the assessee of the grounds for the penalty proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized that penalty provisions, even with civil consequences, must be construed strictly. The AO's failure to strike out the irrelevant limb amounts to an omnibus show cause notice, indicating non-application of mind and causing prejudice to the assessee, violating the principles of natural justice and being ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. The revenue did not provide contradictory facts to disprove prejudice. Therefore, the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) was held to be bad in law and not sustainable. The first ground of appeal was allowed, directing the deletion of the penalty. The other grounds on merits were rendered academic.
The Tribunal, relying on Supreme Court and Special Bench decisions, held that MTM losses on forex derivatives are allowable as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal also considered other grounds related to transfer pricing, disallowance of expenses, bad debts, and interest.
The Tribunal held that the loans were genuine, citing the Income Tax Settlement Commission's findings and the documentary evidence provided by the assessee. Consequently, the disallowance of interest and Section 14A expenses were also deleted.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond three years from the end of the assessment year, and the alleged escaped income was below Rs. 50 lakhs, violating Section 149(1)(b). Furthermore, the approval for the notice was obtained from an authority not specified under Section 151(ii) for cases beyond three years. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no evidence of sham transactions. The Tribunal relied on previous judgments which held that tax planning within legal bounds is permissible and that losses pertaining to exempted income cannot be disallowed if the transactions are not fictitious.
The Tribunal held that no order can be passed against a dead person. Since the AO was aware of the assessee's death, the penalty order was quashed ab-initio. The direction of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the issue of closing stock discrepancy was already decided by a coordinate bench in a prior appeal, where it was held that Section 263 was wrongly invoked. Therefore, the addition based on this issue deserves to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that, considering the contents of the assessee's affidavit, in the interest of justice, the learned CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on merits after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of issues 2 through 8, as the primary issue was the condonation of delay and the subsequent decision on merits by the CIT(A). The ratio decidendi is that procedural fairness requires condonation of delay when there are sufficient reasons and the interest of justice demands it, allowing for a decision on the merits of the case. The operative direction is to remand the matter to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the assessee's submissions. The appeal was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh, granting the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing evidence of cash withdrawals for telescoping benefit and by furnishing loan confirmations and RTGS details for loan transactions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the merits, despite giving opportunities. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the Act was indeed defective for not striking out the irrelevant limb. Following the Full Bench decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Mohammad Farhan Shaikh (supra), the Tribunal ruled that this is not a mere procedural defect but vitiates the entire penalty proceedings. The notice must clearly inform the assessee of the grounds for the penalty proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized that penalty provisions, even with civil consequences, must be construed strictly. The AO's failure to strike out the irrelevant limb amounts to an omnibus show cause notice, indicating non-application of mind and causing prejudice to the assessee, violating the principles of natural justice and being ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. The revenue did not provide contradictory facts to disprove prejudice. Therefore, the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) was held to be bad in law and not sustainable. The first ground of appeal was allowed, directing the deletion of the penalty. The other grounds on merits were rendered academic.
The Tribunal observed that the NFAC's order was not a speaking order and failed to consider the appellant's arguments and prior ITAT directions. The issues were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly invoked Section 69B and sidelined exceptions under Sections 50C and 56(2)(vii). The assessee had sufficiently explained the transaction based on the allotment letter date. For the second issue, the Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the matter to the AO for verification of the donation receipts.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was in error for dismissing the appeal due to non-compliance with hearing notices, especially when the notices were sent to an outdated email address. The Tribunal set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification and grant of TDS credit.
The Tribunal held that the loans were genuine, citing the Income Tax Settlement Commission's findings and the documentary evidence provided by the assessee. Consequently, the disallowance of interest and Section 14A expenses were also deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the reassessment proceedings were invalid. Relying on the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal held that mere information about client code modifications, without a direct link to escaped income, constitutes suspicion and not a reason to believe.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/-. Considering that the lower authorities passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's lack of response, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication, with a direction to provide a fair opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the related application for registration u/s 12AB was set aside by a coordinate bench. Following that, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Ld.CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It held that the error in selecting the clause was inadvertent and procedural, not mala fide, and should not result in denial of the statutory benefit. The matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for rectification and reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown sufficient and reasonable cause for filing the appeal belatedly with the CIT(A), as the delay was within 30 days of receiving the assessment order. The delay was condoned, and the order of the CIT(A) was set aside. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had substantiated the source of investment in the property, with the majority sourced from a home loan and past savings.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal considering the assessee's medical condition. The issues were restored to the file of the AO for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the appeals should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. The undisputed fact was that the orders of both the AO and the CIT(A) were ex-parte. The Tribunal noted that the same CIT(A), in appeals for AYs 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17, had set aside the matters to the AO for fresh assessment. The CIT(A)'s reasoning in those prior cases involved re-examining the matter and directing the AO to make a fresh assessment, while also referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. [2023] 454 ITR 212 regarding additions in completed/unabated assessments. Given that the current assessment order was also framed under Section 144 and the facts were identical to the previously remanded years, the Tribunal deemed it proper to restore the captioned appeals to the AO's file and directed the AO to follow the directions given in the CIT(A)'s order dated March 12, 2025, for the assessment years under consideration. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the said amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- was already offered for taxation and considered in the combined cash flow statement of the Swastik group, which was accepted by the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC). Therefore, no further addition was required in the hands of the assessee.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for resolution under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and submitted the necessary forms. Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's sufficient cause. Considering the assessee's non-compliance, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for a de novo assessment, allowing one more opportunity to present the case with supporting evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after considering the assessee's affidavit. Observing that the matter should be decided on merits and in the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal restored the case to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the same CIT(A) had set aside the matter for other assessment years in the block period and, finding the facts to be identical, deemed it proper to restore the captioned appeals to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to follow the directions given by the CIT(A) in his earlier order.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not comply with the AO's notices and filed wrong grounds before the CIT(A). However, considering that the assessee was not given an opportunity to rectify an error in Form 35, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present its case before the AO.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing evidence of cash withdrawals for telescoping benefit and by furnishing loan confirmations and RTGS details for loan transactions.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was caused by the pandemic and pending rectification application, and that the delay should be condoned with a justice-oriented approach. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the application on technical grounds rather than merits. Citing High Court rulings against deciding on mere technicalities, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and remitted the case back to the CIT(E) to grant the assessee another opportunity to submit documents and decide the application on merits.
The Tribunal held that the property was acquired prior to 1981, and thus, the AO had to consider the value as of April 1, 1981. The sale occurred on April 26, 2011, with a sale consideration of Rs. 81,00,000 for the property, shared equally among three brothers. The Tribunal noted that the Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs Gaurangiben S Shodhan and the Bombay High Court in CIT Vs Pooja Prints held that for transactions during the financial year 2011-12 (relevant for AY 2012-13), the amended provisions of Section 55A(a) would not apply, and the erstwhile provisions would guide the assessment. Under the erstwhile provisions, a reference to the Valuation Officer was permissible only if the AO was of the opinion that the value claimed by the assessee was less than its Fair Market Value. If the value claimed was more than the FMV, a reference was not permissible. The Tribunal found that the AO was not empowered to refer the matter to the DVO even under the erstwhile provisions prior to the amendment by the Finance Act, 2012. Therefore, the reference to the DVO and the subsequent addition based on the DVO's report obtained in the co-owner's case were not legally sustainable. The assessee succeeded on this legal plea. The grounds of appeal were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 was invalid as it did not strike out the irrelevant limb (concealment or inaccurate particulars), violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the timeline for filing Form 10AB has been extended by CBDT circulars due to hardships faced by charitable institutions. The issue of condoning the delay in filing Form 10B and the claimed deduction were remitted back to the CIT(A).
The ITAT held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of application of income under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found no dispute on the facts, and the sole contention was the delay in the approval of Form 10B. The Tribunal noted that in a series of decisions, it has been held that even if Form 10B is filed during assessment proceedings, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of section 11. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was allowed. The operative direction is that the appeal of the assessee is allowed, implying that the exemption under section 11 should be granted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present its case before the first appellate authority, adhering to principles of natural justice. The issue was remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the 16-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), noting it was not inordinate or intentional. As the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the merits, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the orders of both the AO and the CIT(A) were ex-parte. It noted that the same CIT(A), in appeals for AYs 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17, had set aside the matters to the file of the AO. The CIT(A)'s order for those years indicated that the assessment order was passed under Section 144 of the Act and that the matter needed re-examination by the AO, exercising powers under the proviso to Section 251(1)(a). The Tribunal found the facts in the current appeals to be identical to those for the earlier AYs. Therefore, following the precedent set by the CIT(A) for the other assessment years and considering the identical facts, the Tribunal deemed it proper to restore the captioned appeals to the files of the AO. The AO was directed to follow the directions given by the CIT(A) in his order dated March 12, 2025, for the assessment years under consideration. The ratio decidendi is that when similar facts and procedural circumstances exist across different assessment years, and a higher appellate authority has provided a specific direction for one set of years, it is equitable to apply the same direction to the others, especially when the original assessments were ex-parte and the assessee seeks an opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal observed that there is no express prohibition in Section 68 or Section 44AD that prevents an addition relating to cash credit when an assessee opts for presumptive taxation. The Tribunal noted that the case laws relied upon by the assessee were distinguishable. Specifically, the Tribunal found that in the case of Nandlal Papli, the ITAT upheld an addition under Section 68 even with presumptive taxation. Regarding Mahesh Subhash Shukla, the Tribunal distinguished it by noting that the assessee in the present case maintained books of account, unlike in the cited case. During the hearing, the assessee pleaded that the purchase transaction was genuine and payments were made through banking channels in a subsequent year, which had not been examined. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO to verify the genuineness of the payment through banking channels and to thoroughly investigate the purchases made through 'Namo Diamonds' and the corresponding sales. The AO was directed to consider the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in PCIT Vs. Buniyad Chemicals Ltd. if the transaction is found fictitious.
The Tribunal held that provisions for post closure and pit covering expenses are allowable deductions, consistently following its own previous decisions and those of higher courts. The CIT(A) had allowed the claim based on these precedents.
The Tribunal held that additions made to the assessee's income regarding foreign bank account transactions were not sustainable, especially when the source of funds was the father's savings and maturity of deposits. Consequently, penalties levied on these additions were also deleted.